Whistleblowers play an essential role in maintaining democracy by revealing different governmental deficiencies, human rights violations, and exposing corruption on various levels. All the information that comes from them is usually classified and withheld from the public concern by authorities. In 1882 Henrik Ibsen published the play An Enemy of the People that tells the story of a scientist who decided to reveal the essential truth to the people (Hananto, p. 2). He feels a moral obligation to share his findings, despite the threats made by authorities and overall criticism. It seems that during the COVID-19 hardship, the role of insiders becomes even more important in promoting transparency to free the circulation of valuable information. The recent case of a real-life whistleblower, Li Wenliang, has many aspects in common with the case depicted by Norwegian playwright. Although insiders were previously criticized, the COVID-19 pandemic showed that now people are ready and strive to be informed on the shortcomings of institutional reporting systems.
Li Wenliang, a former ophthalmologist of Wuhan Central Hospital, became the first Chinese whistleblower who alerted the local community about the dangerous outbreak. On December 30, 2019, he decided to share his findings with fellow colleagues and posted a message to the WeChat group, where other healthcare professionals could read it. In that message, Dr. Wenliang revealed that “seven SARS cases have been confirmed in Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market” and advised his co-workers to take care of their family members (Zhu, p. 1). On the same day, the healthcare authorities of Wuhan issued a regulation that prohibited the dissemination of patient care information without approval.
The screenshot of Wenliang’s message, which was reposted by WeChat and other social media users, soon reached the local authorities. On January 1, he and the other eight healthcare professionals, who also tried to warn people that novel coronavirus emerged, were identified and accused by police of spreading false information (Abazi, p. 3). On January 3, the alleged rumor-monger was detained and reprimanded by the local law enforcement for spreading false information on the Internet (Zhu, p. 1). Authorities forced the doctor to put his sign on the special document to see him accepting that he disrupted the social order. On January 8, he was diagnosed with the new virus disease, which he contracted working at the hospital. Despite taking measures to cure him, the hero whistleblower passed away in early February. The news about his death prompted a public backlash against the government. Weibo and other social media users criticized authorities for the lack of transparency and called for freedom of speech and official apology to Dr. Wenliang and his family. Nevertheless, the majority of messages were censored in a speedy way.
This leakage of information from the Wuhan Central Hospital is crucial because it exposes not only this institution but the whole command and control system of China under the Communist Party governance. In the time of the health emergency, it is not appropriate to limit the spread of important warnings because openness can save more lives. Moreover, other states could receive this information earlier and prepare a better response if only China opted to share its initial findings rapidly. According to Abazi, the Chinese Constitution reserves the right to criticize and expose any state institution for law or duty violations, but their regulations also foresee special penalties for spreading rumors and disrupting social order (p. 4). There is no clear distinction between the “lawful reporting” and “spreading rumors,” so it is the police who usually decide.
Dr. Wenliang blew the whistle and drew attention to whistleblower protection all over the world. Chinese authorities legally see the insiders as essential enforcers of government regulations and as guardians of the corruption control system; thus, as somebody who works on behalf of the country (Abazi, p. 5). However, it is a narrow view and the insider who discloses information to the public, even when officials try to hide it, not fall within it. The widespread public anger that was sparked by Dr. Wenliang’s death showed that people see him as a hero who wanted to warn others. The public criticized the government for silencing his voice instead of supporting him.
The Chinese government suppressed the local COVID-19 epidemic in less than three months but at a high human rights cost. Movement of people was restricted, entire cities were lockdown, and robust surveillance was deployed to track infected patients and other citizens. All these measures can be internationally approved because of its effectiveness, but withholding important information should not be excused. There is a doubt that the recent public outrage will be transformed into reforms, but now there is hope for a more serious demand for free speech from Chinese people in the near future. One can already see a positive sign from the news that Chinese authorities decided to officially discharge Dr. Wenliang following the investigation of his death (Davidson). The public outrage forced the state’s highest anti-corruption agency to lead investigations in Wuhan, which eventually found that Li had not spread distracting and false rumors. The statement ordered Wuhan’s police to withdraw the reprimand, but it did not contain the proper apology. It also caused a new wave of criticism for punishing police officers instead of eradicating the real problem.
Dr. Stockman, as the main protagonist of the play, similarly to Dr. Wenliang, feels an obligation to warn the public following his findings that dangerous bacteria contaminated the water of the Baths. He is ready to face the adverse reaction of authorities and implications for his reputation. Stockman’s brother, the Mayor, similarly to the Chinese government, wants to conceal the discovery because the city will lose money, and his reputation may be ruined. However, there are significant differences between the presented real-life situation and one depicted by Ibsen. According to Hananto, An Enemy of the People primarily designed to analyze and show how society can be ruled and affected by a majority that has absorbed and concentrated power (p. 12). Their tyranny and violations remain unnoticed by the community because the government is able to turn the entire cities against insiders with the help of their influence. On the contrary, the real case highlighted that people tend to back whistleblowers, even in such highly censored environments. Dr. Stockman eventually faced the anger of people and decided to open a school in order to spread the truth to the poor, while Dr. Wenliang became the victim of Chinese dictatorship and hero in the eyes of the public.
To conclude, insiders, who opt to share information that is essential for the community and is hidden by authorities or institutions, serve as the guardians of free speech and human rights. They should be present in our lives, and people should appreciate and support their bravery. Dr. Li Wenliang revealed that some governments prioritize reputational interests over solving severe issues. Whistleblowing currently draws the attention of the world to the censorship of information, public opinion manipulation, and the importance of transparency as a tool that helps to save lives. Comparison of the real-life case with Dr. Stockman’s one showed that nowadays, it is more difficult to manipulate people, and they are more ready to accept the truth.
Works Cited
Hananto, Mohamad T. Tyranny of the Majority Reflected in Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People Drama (1882): A Sociological Approach. 2015. PhD dissertation. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
Davidson, Helen. “Chinese Inquiry Exonerates Coronavirus Whistleblower Doctor.” The Guardian, 2020.
Abazi, Vigjilenca. “Truth Distancing? Whistleblowing as Remedy to Censorship during COVID-19.” European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2020, pp. 1-9.
Zhu, Junhong. “Is it Ethical to be a “Whistleblower” During COVID‐19 Pandemic? Ethical Challenges Confronted by Health Care Workers in China.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2020, pp. 1-3.